261 replies to this topic

[CyclonerM]

Cimarb, on 15 February 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

From what I have read, changing faction results in a loss of LP from the previous faction(s). To be part of the Dragoons, you have to max each one out, and probably earn the achievement for doing so, even though they won't all be maxed at the same time. You will also lose LP for defeating members of that faction, so if you are Davion, and defeat a Kuritan, you would gain Davion LP and lose Kuritan LP. That is why they are going to organize us by faction in the MM (and therefore can't give us LP currently because the current MM doesn't do that).

GalaxyBluestar, on 15 February 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

i'd hate to be the one who has to tell the "muh friendz" crowd that hey you have to wait a week to be in the same faction to drop with your friends mechs. that's why the LP system will do all that giving and taking away for the players allegance actions.

Time was just an example.
What i mean, @Cimarb, is that in my ideal CW people should not be able to change faction allegiance so easily. Ok, they lose LPs, but if i am a Davion and want a Catapult, i could switch to Liao (maybe losing a few LPs with Davion), buy one at very cheap price and immediately switch back to Davion. I would except only a small loss of LPs while the whole meaning of the factions would be lost.

IMHO, i would love to see hard factions: you are a Davion, you want to have Clan tech? You join a Clan faction, but you are betraying the Inner Sphere; you are not Phelan Kell so you will not be able to come back in the Inner Sphere, or at least you should have to start back from 0.

Edited by CyclonerM, 16 February 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Cimarb]

CyclonerM, on 16 February 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Time was just an example.
What i mean, @Cimarb, is that in my ideal CW people should not be able to change faction allegiance so easily. Ok, they lose LPs, but if i am a Davion and want a Catapult, i could switch to Liao (maybe losing a few LPs with Davion), buy one at very cheap price and immediately switch back to Davion. I would except only a small loss of LPs while the whole meaning of the factions would be lost.

IMHO, i would love to see hard factions: you are a Davion, you want to have Clan tech? You join a Clan factiom, but you are betraying the Inner Sphere; you are not Phelan Kell so you will not be able to come back in the Inner Sphere, or at least you should have to start back from 0.

That is where balancing comes in to play, though. It has to be a significant loss of LP when you change faction to prevent people from switching willy-nilly, but it has to be tempered by making out-of-faction purchases worth actually changing factions.

Using your example, if I am Davion (say 10000/25000 LP into silver loyalty) and the Catapult is a "Liao" mech (i.e. the manufacturing plant is in their current territory), then the Catapult has to be expensive enough to make that Liao ownership matter. Maybe a 200% to 300% increase in cost, or not even available unless you have a certain reputation with Liao. That makes switching factions important.

To balance that, there then has to be enough of a cost to make switching a hard decision. In this instance, I lose all LP in my current bracket of Davion loyalty (10000), with a minimum loss of 5000 to prevent people from switching as soon as they hit a loyalty bracket.

To expand on this, if you switched faction again, say to Kurita, you would then lose all LP in your current loyalty bracket with Liao (min 5000 again) and ALSO lose half of that (2500) in the tertiary faction (Davion). Switching back to Davion may not have the tertiary penalty, but that is debatable.

Regardless, it can't be extreme like your hard faction idea: you can't forever lock someone out of something. The "starting at 0" is a better idea, but IS/Clan shouldn't be any different than House/House or Clan/Clan, as the relationship between IS/Clan isn't any worse than the bitter and millennial hatred that the Houses have for each other and Clans often took bondsmen from other Clans and it was a very accepted practice (though you didn't just "switch" Clans on your own).

[CyclonerM]

Cimarb, on 16 February 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

That is where balancing comes in to play, though. It has to be a significant loss of LP when you change faction to prevent people from switching willy-nilly, but it has to be tempered by making out-of-faction purchases worth actually changing factions.

Using your example, if I am Davion (say 10000/25000 LP into silver loyalty) and the Catapult is a "Liao" mech (i.e. the manufacturing plant is in their current territory), then the Catapult has to be expensive enough to make that Liao ownership matter. Maybe a 200% to 300% increase in cost, or not even available unless you have a certain reputation with Liao. That makes switching factions important.

Maybe i forgot to explain further my point. I see we agree on prices and LP penalties, but what in a game about interestellar wars, i supposed it was quite obvious that the best way to buy at cheaper price a Catapult as a Davion player is capturing a planet which hostes a factory producing Catapults

If switching factions is too easy there is no point in capturing factories, quiaff?

Quote

Regardless, it can't be extreme like your hard faction idea: you can't forever lock someone out of something. The "starting at 0" is a better idea, but IS/Clan shouldn't be any different than House/House or Clan/Clan, as the relationship between IS/Clan isn't any worse than the bitter and millennial hatred that the Houses have for each other and Clans often took bondsmen from other Clans and it was a very accepted practice (though you didn't just "switch" Clans on your own).

Well, maybe the penalty could be enough. I understand why you say there would be no reason to switch Clans (you do not decide to be taken as bondsman) but this applies to Inner Sphere Houses as well. as you said.

Disclaimer: in the following lines, i refer to my ideal CW/MechWarrior game.

I would love if you started as mercenary (lone wolf) and then you had to choose to stay lone wolf, create or join a merc unit or join a faction.. And if you join a faction, make sure it is your favourite one because you cannot change it (or at least not so easily). I mean, why should a Davion fanboy switch to Liao, Kurita or Marik? But i understand this applies better to a single player game..

[Cimarb]

CyclonerM, on 16 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Maybe i forgot to explain further my point. I see we agree on prices and LP penalties, but what in a game about interestellar wars, i supposed it was quite obvious that the best way to buy at cheaper price a Catapult as a Davion player is capturing a planet which hostes a factory producing Catapults

If switching factions is too easy there is no point in capturing factories, quiaff?

I agree with you, but it is a balancing act. It has to be a hard decision to make, and taking a planet needs to be a third option that is also a hard decision (or at least a hard fight). I have extremely high hopes, as I'm sure most of us do, and that just means PGI's job is even harder.

CyclonerM, on 16 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well, maybe the penalty could be enough. I understand why you say there would be no reason to switch Clans (you do not decide to be taken as bondsman) but this applies to Inner Sphere Houses as well. as you said.

Also, the whole mercenary thing throws almost everything for a loop, as mercenaries may or may not be loyal to a specific faction. It will be a lot for PGI to work out, but I really hope they start communicating about it soon...

CyclonerM, on 16 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Disclaimer: in the following lines, i refer to my ideal CW/MechWarrior game.

I would love if you started as mercenary (lone wolf) and then you had to choose to stay lone wolf, create or join a merc unit or join a faction.. And if you join a faction, make sure it is your favourite one because you cannot change it (or at least not so easily). I mean, why should a Davion fanboy switch to Liao, Kurita or Marik? But i understand this applies better to a single player game..

I totally agree, but I hope it is more along the lines of "not easily" than "cannot"... I really dislike "cannot" in a video game. I want factions to matter, and I want capturing planets to matter, and I want to have a choice more than anything.

[CyclonerM]

Well, the hardest restrictions may be for Loyalists, but mercenaries should have penalties as well. How many "loyalty points" do you think the Wolf's Dragoons would have with House Kurita after the Misery incident? I bet they could not have got a new contract easily

This means of course: the more you fight against a faction, the less are the chances of getting contracts from that faction.

[Astral Esper]

I thought I would post my two cents regarding faction switching/loyalty points and the IS vs Clan balance debate (get ready to read):


Faction:
I think that playing as a certain faction for a lengthy amount of time should increase the LP in that faction and decrease the LP in other factions. Price of mechs belonging to a faction should be based on LP of that faction so switching factions just to buy a certain mech wouldn't work because the price wouldn't decrease much if you have been playing in another faction for most of your playing.

For Mercs, LP to factions would be based on matches on same team/enemy team with that faction. If the merc group is mostly neutral, prices wouldn't change much but maybe add an option for the higher ups in the merc group to decide if the merc group is more selective with what factions it works with (ex: you are playing in a merc group but your group wants to be allies with Davion or doesn't want to be allies with Steiner and Liao, your merc group could do that)

As for the Inner Sphere factions and Clan factions, my opinion would be players being able to choose an Inner Sphere faction and a Clan faction due to the fact IS vs Clan matches wouldn't allow Clan mechs on the IS side and vice versa. If you were a member of an Inner Sphere faction, you wouldn't be able to use your Clan mechs and switching back a fourth between Inner Sphere and Clan factions would be cumbersome. The game would just keep your IS stuff and your Clan stuff separate (don't know about C-Bills and MC though).


IS vs Clan balance:

A lot of people seem to be complaining that Clan tech isn't going to be as OP compared to IS as TT had. What you have to take into account here is this is a shooter, not an RTS or turn based strategy board game. Balancing Clans by having more IS players on the other team would just promote players using Clan mechs more and IS mechs less which would end up having too few IS players which would most likely end up with Clan vs Clan matches being commonplace while IS vs Clan being uncommon or rare (and IS vs Clan is suppose to be a major part of MWO, why else would the Clan invasion be the major event chosen to take place during the game's time period?).

Past Mechwarrior titles aren't a great example of balanced tech either because they were largely based around single player. Multiplayer just became who had Clan Tech and who didn't leaving IS tech obsolete.

For anyone trying to say IS could be a competent adversary to the Clans based on teamwork, I have two things to bring up:
Clan players can work together too and most players drop solo (according to PGI's data they released not too long ago (late Feb 2014):

Spoiler

http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry3185728
Granted, this data is a bit non-descriptive about what it means by launches (whether a 4-man group would count as 1 launch or 4 launches isn't elaborated) but not all groups are competitive. There are plenty that are just dropping together for fun and wouldn't have much more coordination then a bunch of PUGs.

True, if the IS team had more players and they were actually working together, that would mean more players that are coordinated, but that would only apply to 12 man groups. 4 man groups would most likely be stuck with 8 other random players with no teamwork. More often then not, there would be games where both sides have little teamwork and the victory is mostly dictated by which side takes the most damage. There is always the possibility that a 12 vs 5 system would deter players away from being a clanner because of the smaller team factor that may make some players feel overwhelmed by having two enemies to fight by yourself essentially but I still feel it would be the smarter idea to make Clan mechs something that is different rather than simply more powerful.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I distinctly recall reading (or perhaps hearing in a podcast or interview) that PGI has stated they plan on balancing Clan tech so it isn't completely outclassing IS but instead providing something different and unique. I believe this is the best path for them to take so players choose which to go with (IS or Clan) based on personal preference and not based on Clans being superior but not so cost efficient. If the two are balanced solely by Clans being less player per match with superior tech that more expensive, there will be players that either join the Clans because they have the money or they will just save up C-Bills and grind until they have enough to join the Clans. It is true that Clan balance needs to avoid being more of the same but the Clans still need to be an alternative, not a step up. PGI needs to make sure that IS tech is still viable on the battlefield. Sure, Clan mechs should be slightly better so that a 12 vs 10 (IS vs Clan) would be an even fight. If Clan mechs were the powerhouses TT had, teams would probably have to be balanced along the lines of 12 vs 5 which would promote joining Clans because there would be more enemies to shoot earning you more damage dealt and kills made. Yes this could be countered by decreasing the C-Bills and XP earned as a Clanner but I doubt that would stop everyone. The allure of being the toughest thing on the battlefield would be enough to convert many IS players to Clan.

When it comes to shooters, balancing by having strength vs numbers isn't the best road to take.


If anyone disagrees, I will respect their opinion but this is my opinion and I stand by it.

[Gargoth]

Nathan K, on 07 February 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

Fixed.

Also, a top speed of only 81kph and not JJ capable? WHAT?

HEAT SINK HARDPOINTS?

And the RT has a MG. So why does it say 1 ENERGY hardpoint?

AHH! MY HEAD HURTS!

i feel for you clanners, i really feel for you..
i was waiting for clan mechs as well, but seeing these hardpoints.
well...
...not so much anymore.

[CyclonerM]

Vertex99, on 09 March 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

For Mercs, LP to factions would be based on matches on same team/enemy team with that faction. If the merc group is mostly neutral, prices wouldn't change much but maybe add an option for the higher ups in the merc group to decide if the merc group is more selective with what factions it works with (ex: you are playing in a merc group but your group wants to be allies with Davion or doesn't want to be allies with Steiner and Liao, your merc group could do that)

Quote

I do not know how solo drops for merc corp players will work regarding LPs, but you should earn them fighting on contract by a faction in 12vs12 battles.
As for the Inner Sphere factions and Clan factions, my opinion would be players being able to choose an Inner Sphere faction and a Clan faction due to the fact IS vs Clan matches wouldn't allow Clan mechs on the IS side and vice versa. If you were a member of an Inner Sphere faction, you wouldn't be able to use your Clan mechs and switching back a fourth between Inner Sphere and Clan factions would be cumbersome. The game would just keep your IS stuff and your Clan stuff separate (don't know about C-Bills and MC though).

Sorry, but i cannot agree in any way. How can you be, for example, one day a rebel pilot and the very next day an imperial pilot, only to switch back to the Rebellion? You have to pick your side, simple.
And i always thought the Clans should have their own currency, preferably Honor. Kerenskies could be used if we say the warrior (the player) requires a 'Mech and a merchant buys (but where?) and ships it..

Quote

12 vs 5 system would deter players away from being a clanner because of the smaller team factor that may make some players feel overwhelmed by having two enemies to fight by yourself essentially but I still feel it would be the smarter idea to make Clan mechs something that is different rather than simply more powerful.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I distinctly recall reading (or perhaps hearing in a podcast or interview) that PGI has stated they plan on balancing Clan tech so it isn't completely outclassing IS but instead providing something different and unique. I believe this is the best path for them to take so players choose which to go with (IS or Clan) based on personal preference and not based on Clans being superior but not so cost efficient. If the two are balanced solely by Clans being less player per match with superior tech that more expensive, there will be players that either join the Clans because they have the money or they will just save up C-Bills and grind until they have enough to join the Clans. It is true that Clan balance needs to avoid being more of the same but the Clans still need to be an alternative, not a step up. PGI needs to make sure that IS tech is still viable on the battlefield. Sure, Clan mechs should be slightly better so that a 12 vs 10 (IS vs Clan) would be an even fight. If Clan mechs were the powerhouses TT had, teams would probably have to be balanced along the lines of 12 vs 5 which would promote joining Clans because there would be more enemies to shoot earning you more damage dealt and kills made. Yes this could be countered by decreasing the C-Bills and XP earned as a Clanner but I doubt that would stop everyone. The allure of being the toughest thing on the battlefield would be enough to convert many IS players to Clan.

More kills? If any of your Star disconnects, or you find yourself alone with little support from your far fewer team mates, i guess you will not enjoy that much the challenge of facing 12 Spheroids.

I, for one, think that balance by numbers could help (but it should not be the only system in place, but also tonnage limits and other stuff).

[MayGay]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 February 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

That's silly... I personally was gonna drop the MPL for another heat sink anyway. I think making the Clan LRMs into a non-arcing long range missile that can't be used to hit someone on the other side of a mountain that you can only get a lock on because your buddy has LoS would have been nerfing enough...

As a matter of fact though unless I'm mistaken, the other ones are accurate.

Yes because 5 tons for a homing LB20-X AC with a 1000m range and more ammo is not broken at all

Edit

also I'm happy they changed it, I really didn't want to see dual AC 20 or gaussmadcats -1 to cheese builds

Edited by James Griffin, 10 March 2014 - 06:31 AM.

[CyclonerM]

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

also I'm happy they changed it, I really didn't want to see dual AC 20 or gaussmadcats -1 to cheese builds

A Gauss Wolf might be a bit cheesy, but a double Gauss Catapult (a 65 tons 'Mech) is even worse.. Instead, the Timberwolf has a too big engine to fit two Gauss rifles (which is right), while a K2 can mount two of them.. In place of 2 machine guns! Then why i cannot mount an UAC/5 in place of the RT Machine Gun on the Timberwolf?

[MayGay]

CyclonerM, on 10 March 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

A Gauss Wolf might be a bit cheesy, but a double Gauss Catapult (a 65 tons 'Mech) is even worse.. Instead, the Timberwolf has a too big engine to fit two Gauss rifles (which is right), while a K2 can mount two of them.. In place of 2 machine guns! Then why i cannot mount an UAC/5 in place of the RT Machine Gun on the Timberwolf?

Timber Wolf in canon has the mguns in the L/R torsos, thus, if it were canon it could have AC/20s or Gauss in the side torsos as the clan XL engine only takes up 2 side torso slots and AC/20 takes up less slots too. VERY happy that they put the mgun in the CT.
Also the difference is that a GaussMadCat would have a considerably higher movement speed then a K2, and more armour, and likely some better backup weapons

[pbiggz]

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Timber Wolf in canon has the mguns in the L/R torsos, thus, if it were canon it could have AC/20s or Gauss in the side torsos as the clan XL engine only takes up 2 side torso slots and AC/20 takes up less slots too. VERY happy that they put the mgun in the CT.
Also the difference is that a GaussMadCat would have a considerably higher movement speed then a K2, and more armour, and likely some better backup weapons

Actually I think it was 2 and 2 at first, then when they altered the way engines were rounded it went to 1 and 2. It might be the other way around.

[Gas Guzzler]

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

Yes because 5 tons for a homing LB20-X AC with a 1000m range and more ammo is not broken at all

Edit

also I'm happy they changed it, I really didn't want to see dual AC 20 or gaussmadcats -1 to cheese builds

If it doesn't arc very much its easy to get cover. They can mess with the short range spread so its ineffective at close range if they wanted too.

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Timber Wolf in canon has the mguns in the L/R torsos, thus, if it were canon it could have AC/20s or Gauss in the side torsos as the clan XL engine only takes up 2 side torso slots and AC/20 takes up less slots too. VERY happy that they put the mgun in the CT.
Also the difference is that a GaussMadCat would have a considerably higher movement speed then a K2, and more armour, and likely some better backup weapons

Sounds like in the canon an MGun was in the CT and the other in the RT. Someone posted that on the first page. I thought it was L/R torsos as well but that was probably just MW4 changing it to make it symmetrical.

[SMDMadCow]

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Timber Wolf in canon has the mguns in the L/R torsos, thus, if it were canon it could have AC/20s or Gauss in the side torsos as the clan XL engine only takes up 2 side torso slots and AC/20 takes up less slots too. VERY happy that they put the mgun in the CT.
Also the difference is that a GaussMadCat would have a considerably higher movement speed then a K2, and more armour, and likely some better backup weapons

One MG is in the CT. And a Dual Gauss Wolf is easy to do with the way the devs want to limit the hardpoints. All you have to do is get the right arm from config B and the left arm from config C.
I would like to point out that the Mad Dog config C is a canon dual gauss build at 60 tons and moves as fast as a Dragon.

[VanillaG]

Cimarb, on 16 February 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

Using your example, if I am Davion (say 10000/25000 LP into silver loyalty) and the Catapult is a "Liao" mech (i.e. the manufacturing plant is in their current territory), then the Catapult has to be expensive enough to make that Liao ownership matter. Maybe a 200% to 300% increase in cost, or not even available unless you have a certain reputation with Liao. That makes switching factions important.

While CW should have a small affect on the price of mechs, but it does nothing to anyone who currently owns the mech before CW or buys them with MC. Instead of dealing with price, give mechs "owned" by a faction a C-Bill boost (say 10%) in matches. That would give an incentive pilot your factions mechs to give each faction a different flavor.

[Cimarb]

VanillaG, on 10 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

While CW should have a small affect on the price of mechs, but it does nothing to anyone who currently owns the mech before CW or buys them with MC. Instead of dealing with price, give mechs "owned" by a faction a C-Bill boost (say 10%) in matches. That would give an incentive pilot your factions mechs to give each faction a different flavor.

I think that is a good idea, though I really hope they re-implement Repair and Rearm for CW. That is really the only way to make CW costs matter. Liao is probably my least favorite House, but I love my Cataphract, so I would be more than happy to assault Liao for months to get my Phract Phactory in Davion hands for a better RnR rate!

[CyclonerM]

James Griffin, on 10 March 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Timber Wolf in canon has the mguns in the L/R torsos, thus, if it were canon it could have AC/20s or Gauss in the side torsos as the clan XL engine only takes up 2 side torso slots and AC/20 takes up less slots too. VERY happy that they put the mgun in the CT.
Also the difference is that a GaussMadCat would have a considerably higher movement speed then a K2, and more armour, and likely some better backup weapons

SMDMadCow, on 10 March 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

One MG is in the CT. And a Dual Gauss Wolf is easy to do with the way the devs want to limit the hardpoints. All you have to do is get the right arm from config B and the left arm from config C.
I would like to point out that the Mad Dog config C is a canon dual gauss build at 60 tons and moves as fast as a Dragon.

Yeah, i think in TT a MG is in CT and the other one in RT or LT, do not remember.

Yes, you could make a Gauss Wolf.. But to have a decent ammo supply for your primary weapons you should use 28 tons. In MWO you could lower a bit the legs armor, but you would still have only 2 Gauss rifles. Even if you bring only 2 tons of ammo you would have only room for 2 ERML and an ERSL.. Due to very big engine.

In MW4 i made my ideal Timberwolf build, 2 CLRM10, 1 CGauss, 1 Light Gauss and a few lasers, but it would be illegal in MWO, TT and anywhere else

[VanillaG]

Cimarb, on 10 March 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think that is a good idea, though I really hope they re-implement Repair and Rearm for CW. That is really the only way to make CW costs matter. Liao is probably my least favorite House, but I love my Cataphract, so I would be more than happy to assault Liao for months to get my Phract Phactory in Davion hands for a better RnR rate!

That C-Bill boost is really a replacement for R&R. Think of it as cheaper R&R which means more money in your pocket. I would like to see R&R reintroduced as well but I can't think of way to introduce it without it screwing over newer players.

[wanderer]

Quote

Clan players can work together too and most players drop solo (according to PGI's data they released not too long ago (late Feb 2014):

Actually, that data says 1 in 3 players is in a group drop. And that's after PGI eviscerated the grouping system, at that. And utterly ignored community warfare in any sense of the word.

[Pando]

VanillaG, on 10 March 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

That C-Bill boost is really a replacement for R&R. Think of it as cheaper R&R which means more money in your pocket. I would like to see R&R reintroduced as well but I can't think of way to introduce it without it screwing over newer players.

What about what WarThunder did giving the player "free repairs" for purchase of a new battlemech.